Monthly Archives: March 2009

This question was recently posed by our friends over at the Law Librarian blog via an informal poll. The results are interesting and can be found here. Cable&Clark has been on Twitter since we started our business (to follow us click here), and have seen the benefits time and again. The first day on Twitter, I was lost. First, I couldn’t figure out how to find people (Twitter search has since been fixed), and, second, I was having trouble understanding the value. But help was quickly found from Steve Matthews (@stevematthews) and Greg Lambert (@glambert), both Twitter vets and technology gurus.

I have grown to appreciate Twitter, and the instantaneous way it allows me to connect with thousands of legal professionals. If you are wondering who is on Twitter, check out this list on the JD Supra blog, which has grown to 636 as of last month. There you’ll find everyone from the Yale Law Library (@yalelawlibrary) to large law firm McDermott Will & Emery (@mcdermottlaw).

Should Twitter be part of your marketing strategy? The answer to that question depends on many different variables, but I do think that Twitter has grown in its importance and influence in just the last six months. For example, this year LegalTech New York had a whole session devoted to Twitter.

Where is all of this going? As I’ve said before, I don’t know…but I’m ready to enjoy the ride!

The ubiquitous nature of information has become both a blessing and curse. Easy to access general information about a medical condition, or finding the address of a restaurant in an unfamiliar city, has revolutionized our world. It has also changed our expectations and our appetite for seeking information. This new reality has surfaced in the jury box at several recent trials, and the results can ruin a lawyer’s day. For the full story, click here.

What will the trials of the future look like? Will jurors be required to surrender their iPhones, laptops and Blackberry’s? How will the pervasive nature of information affect motions for a change of venue? Learning about a sensational (or not so sensational) trial in another state is easy these days. Will “surfing the web” be added to the restrictions placed on a juror, in addition to no TV or newspapers? Seems like a tall order in this day and age.

I’m not sure where this is going, but it seems like a consequence of living in an information age.

Pacer is getting a lot of press these days, and it isn’t pretty. First, Carl Malamud, of recent Pacer fame (also our prior post), has launched a campaign to be appointed Public Printer. In addition to 709 endorsements, Mr. Malamud has also submitted a detailed series of policy statements. If Mr. Malamud were to be appointed, it certainly would fit under the “change” mantra of President Obama’s campaign.

Second, Senator Joe Lieberman has written a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States to ask whether the Pacer system is in compliance with the E-Government Act of 2002. Pacer currently charges .08 cents per page, which doesn’t seem like much but it definitely adds up. In addition, Pacer is clunky and offers very few search options.

Let’s hope that this brouhaha leads to some really changes to docket research.